From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_MISSING, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from moutvdomng0.schlund.de (moutvdomng0.kundenserver.de [195.20.224.130]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75F1EABD53 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 05:43:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [172.19.20.63] (helo=mrvdomng2.kundenserver.de) by moutvdomng0.schlund.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 17GdgV-0005hC-00 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 08 Jun 2002 12:43:03 +0200 Received: from [80.132.16.172] (helo=eiche.ahsoftware) by mrvdomng2.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #2) id 17GdgV-0003Aq-00 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 08 Jun 2002 12:43:03 +0200 Received: from krabat.ahsoftware (krabat.ahsoftware [192.168.207.2]) by eiche.ahsoftware (8.11.2/8.11.2/SuSE Linux 8.11.1-0.5) with ESMTP id g58AdHA01248 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2002 12:39:17 +0200 Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 12:42:36 +0200 From: Alexander Holler To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Optimized Qt Message-ID: <146440000.1023532956@krabat.ahsoftware> In-Reply-To: <200206081207.22251.danarmak@gentoo.org> References: <117320000.1023524629@krabat.ahsoftware> <200206081207.22251.danarmak@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.0 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: b5e4765c-a39e-4522-99e2-c746b7500db9 X-Archives-Hash: bdaa908657bcdfcadc957d0ff141fb58 Hello, --On Samstag, Juni 08, 2002 12:07:17 +0300 Dan Armak wrote: > Please see bug #1571. I haven't had time to "investigate" beyond what the > comments say. If we could get a good rule of what CFLAGS work and what > don't I'd be willing to itroduce the thing into the qt ebuilds. I've just got the same bug with reloads building qt3 with customized CFLAGS. This gcc bug looks like some bugs I've got trying to build gentoo with gcc 3.1. With the difference that gcc 3.1 kindly asks for filling out bug reports. ;) And I agree that it isn't a good idea to use customized flags if qmake records these flags for future buildings (specially the processor flags). Alexander